Federal Circuit Finds Patent Not Infringed After Reversing Claim Construction That Violated “Grammatical Principles” to Cover All Embodiments

Jan 20, 2021

Reading Time : 4 min

The ʼ689 Patent—owned by SIMO Holdings Inc. ("SIMO")—discloses a variety of apparatuses and methods for avoiding cell phone roaming charges. In 2018, SIMO asserted claim 8 of the ʼ689 Patent against Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited et al. (collectively, “uCloudlink”) in the Southern District of New York. At issue in the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement was the preamble of claim 8, which reads:

A wireless communication client or extension unit comprising a plurality of memory, processors, programs, communication circuitry, authentication data stored on a subscribed identify module (SIM) card and/or in memory and non-local calls database, at least one of the plurality of programs stored in the memory comprises instructions executable by at least one of the plurality of processors for . . . .

While the parties agreed that the preamble is limiting, they disagreed on whether it requires a “non-local calls database.” SIMO argued that such a database was not required and, accordingly, did not offer any evidence in its motion or in response to uCloudlink’s motion that the accused products included that element. uCloudlink disagreed, arguing that the grammar and plain language of the preamble indicated that a “plurality of . . . non-local calls database[s]” was required and that its accused products did not include any such databases.

The district court agreed with SIMO and granted summary judgment of infringement. First, the district court held that the preamble is limiting because “the preamble is the only part that identifies the physical components of the apparatus.” Second, it explained that the preamble does not require a “non-local calls database” because the word “and” preceding that language can and should be treated as “and/or.” The district court reasoned that—“although grammatically appealing”—considering the “non-local calls database” as non-optional would “contradict the specification” because the patent describes it as optional and includes embodiments with and without such a database. The district court relied heavily on Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., in which the Federal Circuit stated “where claims can reasonably [be] interpreted to include a specific embodiment, it is incorrect to construe the claims to exclude that embodiment, absent probative evidence [to] the contrary.” 14 F.3d 1271, 1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (brackets in original). After SIMO was awarded damages at trial, uCloudlink appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s construction and reversed the infringement finding. As an initial matter, the court agreed that the preamble was limiting. It rejected, however, the district court’s interpretation of the preamble because Federal Circuit law and principles of grammar dictate that “modifier” phrases like “a plurality of” and “at least one of” generally apply to each component in a subsequent list—especially one that ends with “and” instead of “or.” Accordingly, the claim requires “a plurality of . . . non-local calls database[s].”

Additional claim language in and surrounding the list of components in the preamble confirmed to the court that the “plurality of” modifier applies to each component. For example, following the list, the preamble refers to “at least one of the plurality of programs” and “at least one of the plurality of processors,” which shows that “programs” and “processors”—and, by extension, the other listed components—were previously defined as “pluralities.” Moreover, according to another grammatical principle, the fact that no item in the list is preceded by an article (such as “a”) indicates that all items should be treated uniformly with respect to an initial modifier.

The Federal Circuit also explained that the district court interpreted Oatey too rigidly. Oatey explained that claims should be construed to cover an embodiment only when it is “reasonable” to do so and when there is no “probative evidence [to] the contrary.” But, while claims should generally cover an embodiment—particularly a preferred embodiment—each claim need not cover every embodiment. Here, (1) the claim language itself was probative evidence that embodiments lacking a “non-local calls database” were excluded from claim 8, (2) its construction does cover a disclosed embodiment, and (3) there was no preferred embodiment in the specification. In short, the Federal Circuit’s construction is consistent with the case law.

Finally, the Federal Circuit held that because SIMO did not address the correct interpretation, it failed to rebut as a matter of law uCloudlink’s assertion that the accused products do not infringe because they do not include a “non-local calls database.” Accordingly, instead of remanding the case, the Federal Circuit ordered the district court to enter a judgment of noninfringement.

Practice tip: SIMO demonstrates that a patent claim should, first and foremost, be construed according to its plain language. In particular, a claim should not be construed inconsistent with grammatical principles in an effort to cover each and every embodiment disclosed in a patent’s specification. Moreover, SIMO shows that a preamble of a claim will likely be held as limiting if it provides “structure” to the claim, regardless of whether doing so excludes certain embodiments. Finally, the case is a reminder that, when feasible, practitioners should address all competing and alternative constructions in their contentions and expert reports so as to avoid summary judgment if their proposed construction is not adopted.

SIMO Holdings Inc., v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology LTD, No. 19-2411 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2021).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.